I’ve always been interested in non-mainline American Protestantism (and a bit in mainline Protestantism as well, of course) simply because I’m interested in religion, period, particularly from an historical and political persepective. In particular, over the past forty years or so, Catholicism has interacted with this type of Christianity (evangelicalism in its broadest sense) and continues to be shaped by that encounter, either through reaction or imitation.
I’m not going to go through the entire “define evangelicism” routine again because I’m just going to trust that you understand that American evangelical Christianity has many houses, some of which are, frankly, at war with one another, never mind the rest of the world. In short, Joel Osteen is not the same as Rob Bell who is not the same as Rick Warren who is not the same as the late James Kennedy who are not the same as TBN who is definitely not the same as Eerdmans Press who is not the same as Randy and Paula White who couldn’t make it past New Testament 101 at Wheaton College.
What I’m very interested in right now is the spinning that is going on within evangelicalism between a number of these houses: The Word Faith people, (basically the Prosperity preachers like Osteen, the Whites, Crefo Dollar, etc, although I think there are nuances there that I don’t quite grasp), the Emergent Christians (who would, I think, call themselves “post-evangelical,” although there is more to post-evangelicalism than that), the megachurch/church growth movement (Willowcreek, Warren – against which the Emergents are reacting in part, I think) and, against all of the preceding, the hardcore…I don’t know..Reformed/Calvinist people. Someone in the comments can perhaps elaborate on this last point. You can also through charismatic/pentecostal movements in there.
All of these forces and movements cross denominational lines and in a sense make the old denominational lines rather meaningless. I hope someone, somewhere is writing a doctoral dissertation on that very fact, because I’d love to read it.
It’s dizzying and fascinating.
One of the most fascinating points to watch with all of these brands and movements is to see how far they go, what particular angle or aspect of Christian teaching, or even what Bible verses they spin out and expand into the entirety of The Gospel. It’s also interesting to watch the pure market forces at work and how American consumer/marketplace mentality affects all of these movements. And most interesting of all, to me, is to watch and try to think through the whole process on which these folks justify their own teachings and judge others as faulty or even “heretical.”
I’m always left thinking, after reading through series of torrid, hot and angry blog posts in various places, “Well, you got your branch of religion based on individual interpretation of Scripture. So….what? Who are you to judge this person’s interpretation as flawed or even heretical?”
I simply can’t make sense of it. I honestly don’t understand the grounding. They (particularly the hard-core folks who are particularly contemptuous of the more contemporary movements) say that they’re all about the Word of God and preaching the Word and doctrine instead of this mushy seeker stuff or the prosperity gospel or whatever, and while I’m sympathetic, I’m also thinking, “Uh, John 6? People? Is that part of your “gospel?” And you can multiply the examples from there. The whole position seems intellectually untenable. If a properity preacher wants to pick out a few verses from Scripture and warp that into a movement that tells people to expect God to “bless them” financially as a sign of faith, I don’t see how the preacher who picks out a few verses from Scripture to construct a theory of individual justification and salvation and then ignores much of what the New Testament has to say about other matters, not to speak of the apostolic church – what grounds the latter has to say anything about the former. It’s all selective, and furthermore, it’s all rooted, not in the pure Word of God, but in someone else’s filter of that Word of God, whether that be Luther, Calvin or Charles Spurgeon.
I’ll be frank and unecumenical here. I’m not bashing, I’m not, God knows, ignoring the faults of Catholicsm. Longtime readers know me too well for that. I’m not degrading the faith of millions of loving, faithful disciples of Jesus in other Christian denominations. I’m just trying to examine a bigger picture.
So. Imagine defining Christianity based on Catholicism alone. (Remember, Catholicism is more than the Roman Rite, too.) Okay, think about it. Given the struggles and various movements and dynamics and doctrinal development within Catholicism – yes, given all that, you could still come up with an organic, consistent understanding of what Christianity is.
Now take Catholicism out of the picture. Imagine Catholicism didn’t exist any more. And define Christianity based on Protestantism alone – not the individual idiocycratic weirdness of this or that preacher, but the whole thing, from Luther to Pentecostalism to the Episcopal Church USA, and taking in the teachings of the variety of evangelicalism at work in the world today.
What do you have?
What is Christianity?
Anything in particular?
To be honest, as I plow through these conversations, convoluted and heated, I always end up thinking that all of these people need to be Catholic. With their passion for truth, for being disciples – all of that is present, in its fullness, in Catholicism, even if it is not exactly self-evident in every single Catholic parish one runs across in real life. There is much talk these days about “evangelical Catholicism” which strikes some as odd, but I really don’t see why at all. Catholicism is Christianity which is faith in Jesus who told the apostles to go out to all the world. Being that today doesn’t mean copying evangelical approaches or sensibilities, in my mind. It simply means living out Catholicism in all of its faithful, vivid, life-giving diversity – the completeness and wholeness which any convert from evangelicalism to Catholicism will tell you is exactly what they found
And where does Orthodoxy fit in the picture here? Does Catholicism makes sense without the Orthodox churches?
And where does Orthodoxy fit in the picture here?
Don’t know — hard to say. The Orthodox Churches have historically been ethnocentric, e.g., don’t have a strong missionary outreach, tending to stay local. But it has a deep, rich spirituality and liturgical tradition — they are holy and apostolic. Our theological differences are vastly outnumbered by our common faith, our union in Christ Jesus. I hope that the Orthodox churches aren’t offended that they are “catholic” too. They bear the credal marks of the Church, to be sure.
Does Catholicism makes sense without the Orthodox churches?
It has and it does, although I still pray for reunion. Can a person live with one lung? Yup, but it is better to have two.
Protestantism without Catholicism would look like a tangle of fallen boughs, branches, limbs and twigs of a tree. The only thing missing to positively identify it as constituent parts of a once-living whole — a tree — would be the main thing, the thing that spawned the parts and sustained them: the trunk.
Hi Amy,
Here is a related thought experiment for you.
I find this helpful in understanding both the Catholic Church (historical and contemporary), as well as Protestant Churches, and even Islam.
Consider the two fundamental structural paradigms of the Catholic Church:
1. the episcopal/diocesan/territorial structure with priests and parishes, and all the ordinary local folks in their ordinary lives
2. the monastic/religious structures with their separations, distinctions, particular charisms, and, most importantly, independent leadership
What keeps you from considering all of the Protestant world, with its various fragmentations and peculiarities, as nothing but another form of Catholic monsticism/religious life? There are certainly plenty of Catholic religious who have less inclination to follow anything from Rome than your typical Protestant. And the monastic/religious tradition has a great, traditional emphasis on Scripture, and personal interpretation, or the particular interpretation of great past or present leaders of their communities. I think Islam is similar.
Catholic monasticism/religious life, Protestantism, and Islam are all strongly decentralized, have fierce traditions of independence, and boast of their being universal and of great service to mankind while being in conflict with Rome.
I’ve had the same thought Amy “they all need to be Catholic”…but then I realize, esp after I’m around my Protestant relatives for awhile, that they just can’t be until they ‘get’ the Authority issue. Until that happens, I know they (who used to me too!) love Jesus but it boils down to “love Jesus on my own terms”. Even though there are a ton of cafeteria-catholics who act that way, its never been a Church teaching and, thank God, never will…but that tenet is what got the protestants going in the first place.
So, if the center doesn’t hold, the tire looses it spokes & you can’t ride the bike anymore…which is basically what a Christianity without a Catholic Church would look like.
I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy both make sense independently, although would be better together. But I don’t think Orthodoxy fits in the Protestant debate if only becasue they’re not really on the Protestant’s radar screens. Most Protestant’s issues with Catholicism (except the Papacy) would be equally applicable to Orthodoxy.
The goings on in various Protestant groups are, I think, interesting ecclesiological laboratories. Two of the most interesting to me are
1) various Anglican groups, see http://www.standfirminfaith.com/, which are heading more “protestant”
2) the Federal Vision folks within the Reformed groups, see
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/search?q=federal+vision, which are heading more “catholic”
I think the increased inter-communication via the Internet and general modern mobility tend to amplify both Catholic and Protestant distinctives, at least in a merely cultural sense.
If the Protestant turmoil were going on within the Catholic Church, there would be new religious orders forming; however, lacking adequate “instruments of unity” there is sometimes more heat than light.
As his earthly demise neared, Martin Luther seemed to realize what he started wouldn’t end with only his ideas. He had opened up Pandora’s Box. The Marburg Colloquy was an eye opening experience as it became clear that some who had left the Church didn’t believe in the Saraments anymore, even the Eucharist. It got worse. Some Protestants seemed to argue with themselves more than anyone else. This brings us to the modern era. The liturgical churches (Lutherans, Episcopalians & Methodists) seemed to hit a brick wall starting in the late 1950s. The advent of the openly heretical teachings via Bishops Pike And Spong left the door open for millions of their members to leave for more conservative, non-denominational feel good churches. In my book Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism, I note that the Methodist Church has been losing about 1,000 members a week since the early 1970s. In the last few years the worldwide Anglican Communion, especially the Episcopal Church has been in a free fall.
It begs the question how do these non-denominational churches reconcile the fact that everyone seems to have a different opinion on the need for sacraments, salvation and a host of other issues? Besides John 6:22-69, it would appear that Matthew 16:16-19, 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, John 20:19-23 and John 17:20-24 were left out of their Bibles. You would think the last Scripture passage would jump out at them. However, it appears Jesus’ call for Christians to be one has fallen on deaf ears.
Judging from those whom I know to be in those non-denominatioanl churches, my armchair psychological guess is that many people want to have God in their lives. They don’t want their kids taught that social engineering and every feeling you have is OK. However, these same people can’t quite surrender themselves to obediance and authority, which is why the Catholic Church is so hated in some circles. They want obediance from players on their favorite sports teams but that is not how they feel about their religious beliefs. They want to think they are “saved” and secure.
Re Old Zhou’s post: Yes; however, while the Catholic Church has _both_ of those fundamental structures, Protestantism has only the second and the only overarching episcopal structure would be to consider the Protestant religious structures to be separated religious orders, ie extending the Catholic Church’s view of non-Catholic Christians to organizations thereof.
Here’s my Protestant two-cents worth:
What would Christianity look like if there were just Protestants? It could be defined by the early ecumenical creeds (Nicea-Constantinople, Chalcedon in particular) as well as the solas of the Reformation. Remember, the early Reformers did not throw out tradition altogether. Perhaps many modern Protestants have disregarded tradition- this is our loss. But the Christianity that is assumed by Protestants is still very definable. We just need to better job of reinforcing that definition within our ranks.
Greg:
With all due respect:
What about the Protestant bodies that are redefining sexuality and geneder as we speak? The non-Trinitarian bodies among the Pentecostals? Etc. Etc.
No, there’s no consistent vision or understanding of Christianity in a body that both celebrates Bishop Gene Robinson and his gay partner and preaches a non-Trinitarian vision of God (Pentecostals) and embraces the Goddess and preaches health and wealth – all officially as their “creeds” rather than the creeds you say they proclaim. It’s a mess!
I think this captures the essence of the infamous phrase “subsists in”, as in the Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Healthy branches are attached to the trunk. As branches are severed from the trunk, they wither and die. Some Protestant offshoots are wounded but still receiving nourishment through their attachment to the Scriptures; others are nearly hacked through; a few already lie on the ground rotting, but still green and superficially attractive.
Authority is the main issue, as others have noted. Serious Protestants deny that they follow an infallible tradition, but in practice consider some ideas anathema. Hard-shell Reformed for years held the Westminster Confession to be a “correct” interpretation of the Scriptures and would depose ministers for deviations from it, even as they would deny it was “infallible”. Baptists used to reject the validity of all creeds in principle (some still do even now), yet they now generally require ministers to adhere to a creed by any other name (i.e. “faith and message statement”). But most Protestants have not really engaged Catholic Tradition directly nor on its own terms. Protestant bookstores don’t generally carry Catholic authors. Protestants learn about Catholicism from the secular media, the movies, and from Protestant apologetics that invariably invoke the specter of statue-worship, Galileo, the Dark Ages, Borgia popes, etc.
It is up to Catholics to know their own Tradition and be able to explain it, gently and patiently, to those who have drunk in anti-Catholicism (or at least misconceptions about Catholicism) with their mother’s milk. It is also up to Catholics to trust that the faith makes sense and is attractive. People would simply ignore Catholicism if it were not an intellectually and spiritually compelling alternative to the spiritus mundi; the fact that they rail and kick against it says something.
Mark, I won’t dispute the charge that in many quarters Protestant “Christianity” is a sad mess. That is an observable fact that is cause for mourning to all who love Christ and His church.
What should be the consistent vision of Christianity is not what is the consistent vision of Christianity within Protestantism. Historically, theologically, and spiritually, Protestants should define themselves by the Bible, the early creeds, and the solas. Many still do, for which I’m thankful to God.
It is true that Protestantism cannot uniformly and definitively discipline those who reject the defining truths of Christianity. We take comfort in knowing that one day the tares will be exposed and removed, so that the Church can reflect the purity of its Savior.
Regarding the Orthodox — another interesting trend is the phenomenon of non-mainline Protestants converting to Orthodoxy without ever softening their views of the Catholic Church.
Regarding fred’s comment, Orthodoxy IS on the “radar screen” of many Protestants, just not in the way that you would expect.
I know some Protestants who developed an interest in patristics and ended up in Orthodoxy because of it. They never even considered joining Catholicism due to anti-Catholic feelings, which seemed to intensify after they converted to Orthodoxy (after all, the Orthodox churches have a whole other wellspring of anti-Catholicism sentiment to draw from).
Some of the most anti-Catholic Christians that I know are Protestant converts to Orthodoxy.
Anyone interested in Protestant converts to Orthodoxy should read this article:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9504fea1.asp
Mark says: “…preaches a non-Trinitarian vision of God (Pentecostals)…”
Wait wait wait! Are you saying that pentecostals preach a non-trinitarian vision of God? Where would you get that idea? Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, some Quakers, yes. These non-Chalcedonian churches are non-trinitarian.
Although I’ve remained Catholic (by the grace of God) through my life, I spent a lot of time in my youth also attending Pentecostal services. I never heard anything from any of them that questioned the Trinity.
Did I misunderstand you, Mark?
It is fascinating to watch evangelicalism spin out of control, having had its traditional denominational moorings removed.
The most recent rider to step off the dizzying whirl is, of course, Frank Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society.
delray:
Yes. There are some pentecostal groups that deny the trinity. The UPC for example. They also teach baptismal regeneration unlike most other protestants, but say baptism is in Jesus name only – not Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It goes back to the heresy of modalism. But there are plenty of former catholics there.
I loved the comment: “To be honest, as I plow through these conversations, convoluted and heated, I always end up thinking that all of these people need to be Catholic.”
I have this thought so frequently when I speak with non-catholic christians who have such a hunger for God. Great topic and conversation everyone. Peace.
Some things I love about Protestantism. There’s a restlessness that is ever eager to learn more about God and to follow His will. Religion is everybody’s business not just for the professionals. Protestant theology is like a high-wire act without the net (the Magisterium).
It truly comes down to authority over and over again.
It’s interesting to see Protestantism “protest” against itself – especially to observe how “emergents” and Calvinists distance themselves from the label “evangelical”.
Yes, Jane.
For example, Charles Wesley considered Methodism to be a renewal movement within the Church [see John R Tyson's, Charles Wesley: A Reader]. However, since England rebelled against the authority of the Catholic Church (for largely political reasons), there was only the Church of England which did not have adequate instruments of unity to contain and be rejuvenated by the renewal movement. Hence, Anglicanism’s slow decline and also, I contend, American Methodism’s subsequent failure to survive the Civil War intact. Current turmoil within what’s called the Anglican Communion, and also within the Presbyterian hodgepodge, are further illustrations, I think.
I contend that no Protestant denomination/sect has be able to constain/sustain renewal. While some radical protestants would contend that’s a good thing and just illustrative of human structures not being able to contain the Holy Spirit and that one just has to follow what the Spirit is doing NOW, I take it to be instead just an indication of sandy foundations and rupture of connection with the Body of Christ, extended in both space and time. The Catholic Church HAS been able to contain/sustain renewal without falling totally apart over its nearly 2000 year history.
One may contend that the Orthodox Church has sustained renewal; however, I think that is more a matter of the various Orthodox ChurchES sequential flowering: Greek, Slavic and, perhaps now/soon, American.